The Didache

[Secundulus]

Consider what the earliest Christians saw in the symbology of the broken bread of the Eucharist.

And concerning the broken bread:
We thank Thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom; for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever..
The Kingdom they speak of is the rule of God, here on earth, in the hearts and minds of the Body of Christ. This is the primary meaning behind the Institution of the Eucharist. It symbolizes the unity of God's people under the New Covenant of Jesus Christ.

In the beginning it was for unity. Now it is a weapon we use against each other in our quest to prove we are holier than the other. Who is innocent?

[a_ntv]

It symbolizes the unity of God's people under the New Covenant of Jesus Christ.

This is your own PROTESTANT interpretation
For sure limited and so wrong

The Bread doeas not SYMBOLIZE anything. It IS the Body of Him

In the didache the Miracle of the Transubstatation is painted in this way: as we start the Mass with many different separated pieces of bread (offered at the offertory by the faithfulls who came by all over the wolrd), but after the consacration these pieces are becamed ONE, even if they look like to be many.
ONE because the they all are the BODY Of CHRIST.
If they were not the Body of Christ, they would have remaind MANY.

The Didache says: be carefull: they loks like as many separeted pieces of bread, but they actually are the ONE Body of Christ.

By the work of the Holy Spirit the Bread had became ONE (= THE one Body of Him), and so we too shall became One in Him (=to became 100% Christ-like)

So the Church is the mistycal Body of Christ: One Holy, Catholic, Apostolic.

If you dont believe that the Bread is One (=His Body), you also dont believe that the Church is One: that is typical of the protestant deminations (as the anglicans) that believe that the church is simply the sum of many faithfuls because they dont believe that Bread is One (One = His BODY)

There is an echo of the second part of this prayer in the Catholic Eucharistic Preayers:
May all of us who share in the body and blood of Christ be brought together in unity by the Holy Spirit.

[Secundulus]

This is your own PROTESTANT interpretation
For sure limited and so wrong

The Bread doeas not SYMBOLIZE anything. It IS the Body of Him

In the didache the Miracle of the Transubstatation is painted in this way: as we start the Mass with many different separated pieces of bread (offered at the offertory by the faithfulls who came by all over the wolrd), but after the consacration these pieces are becamed ONE, even if they look like to be many.
ONE because the they all are the BODY Of CHRIST.
If they were not the Body of Christ, they would have remaind MANY.

The Didache says: be carefull: they loks like as many separeted pieces of bread, but they actually are the ONE Body of Christ.

By the work of the Holy Spirit the Bread had became ONE (= THE one Body of Him), and so we too shall became One in Him (=to became 100% Christ-like)

So the Church is the mistycal Body of Christ: One Holy, Catholic, Apostolic.

If you dont believe that the Bread is One (=His Body), you also dont believe that the Church is One: that is typical of the protestant deminations (as the anglicans) that believe that the church is simply the sum of many faithfuls because they dont believe that Bread is One (One = His BODY)

There is an echo of the second part of this prayer in the Catholic Eucharistic Preayers:
May all of us who share in the body and blood of Christ be brought together in unity by the Holy Spirit.

So, we are saying the same thing. It is the body and blood of Christ we eat that makes us one. We believe the same thing.

Only it doesn't make us one any more because we refuse to do it together.

We don't believe in the explanation of transubstantiation though because that was a medieval attempt to explain the mystery of God. It was unknown to the early Church and cannot be found in any early Church writings.

We simply accept that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ through the power of God because that is what it says in the scriptures.

We pray this together before partaking of the communion.

WE do not presume to come to this thy Table, O merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but in thy manifold and great mercies. We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under thy Table. But thou art the same Lord, whose property is always to have mercy: Grant us therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his Body, and our souls washed through his most precious Blood, and that we may evermore dwell in him, and he in us. Amen.
The priest says this when giving it.
THE Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life. Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by faith, with thanksgiving.

THE Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was shed for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life. Drink this in remembrance that Christ’s Blood was shed for thee, and be thankful.
Other than not trying to explain the mystery of God using human Aristotelian logic, how is this belief different from yours?

Given that, the communion as a whole was a physical symbol of the mystical union of the Body of Christ on earth. We break this union when we refuse each other communion.

[Secundulus]

There is an echo of the second part of this prayer in the Catholic Eucharistic Preayers:
May all of us who share in the body and blood of Christ be brought together in unity by the Holy Spirit.

Is this any different?

. . . that we, and all others who shall be partakers of this Holy Communion, may worthily receive the most precious Body and Blood of thy Son Jesus Christ, be filled with thy grace and heavenly benediction, and made one body with him, that he may dwell in us, and we in him.

[Sothron]

I had no idea the Anglicans have the same belief about the Eucharist that EO have.

[Albion]

I had no idea the Anglicans have the same belief about the Eucharist that EO have.

Well, we all (EO, RC, OO, OC, A's) do believe in the Real Presence, as we see.

Defining it is where we divide up.

However, if you are referring specifically to this perspective: "We simply accept that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ through the power of God because that is what it says in the scriptures," I would agree that there is an important similarity between Anglican adn EO understanding.

[Sothron]

Yes, the difference of believing in that it is a Mystery as to how and when is what I was referring to. I had assumed the Anglicans had taken the RCC stance.

[a_ntv]

WE do not presume to come to this thy Table,

We call it ALTAR, not Table.

Becasue the Eucahrist is the same sacrifice of the Cross, made present of us, not only a thinking to such a sacrifice

The Altar is the Calvary, where Christ died and where Christ arose from the deaths.

Not simply a table, like the one you can find in a restorant

Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by faith, with thanksgiving.

We dont it the Holy Bread because we remeber, through it, of Christ death and ressurection.
We eat the Holy Bread because it IS the Body of Christ.

The anglican canon of the Mass is very ambigous: it can be acceptable by both a calvinist and by both a catholic.
But not because calvinist sand catholics believe in the same doctrine, but simply because the anglican canon uses ambigous expressions

Other than not trying to explain the mystery of God using human Aristotelian logic, how is this belief different from yours?

We catholics easily accept other ways to paint the Transubstantaion not using any Aristototelic term. It is not a problem for us.
Nor the Aristotelian logic explains the mystery. it simply uses specialistic terms, but it explains nothing. The mistery remains a mistery.

It is impossible to say how our believe is different form the Anglican's one, because the anglicans have not a defined believe and their prayers are very ambigous.

You shall believe that:
- there is an actual change in the bread before the Mass and the Bread after the Mass
- the Holy Bread after the Mass IS (to be) the Body of Chirst. The verb 'to simbolize' is wrong.
- the Change happen ONLY for the work of the Holy Spirt. The faithfulls faith, memory, mind, feeling, remembrance is completly uselss for the Change to happen
- the Sanctified Bread remains the Body of Christ even if no human people think to it.
- the Mass is the very one sacrifice of the Cross: not a repeatiotion, nor simply a re-mind of it. It happens on the escatological time, not on the human time.
- the Eucharist is a mistery above any human being: it is the true aliment for us. It cannot be measured by the single faithfull faith.
- only the Church, by the ministry of an priest or bishop ordained with the sacrament of Holy Order, can pray the Holy Spirit to do the Change.

If you believe these points, we have the same faith on this issue

[Secundulus]

You shall believe that:
- there is an actual change in the bread before the Mass and the Bread after the Mass
- the Holy Bread after the Mass IS (to be) the Body of Chirst. The verb 'to simbolize' is wrong.
- the Change happen ONLY for the work of the Holy Spirt. The faithfulls faith, memory, mind, feeling, remembrance is completly uselss for the Change to happen
- the Sanctified Bread remains the Body of Christ even if no human people think to it.
- the Mass is the very one sacrifice of the Cross: not a repeatiotion, nor simply a re-mind of it. It happens on the escatological time, not on the human time.
- the Eucharist is a mistery above any human being: it is the true aliment for us. It cannot be measured by the single faithfull faith.
- only the Church, by the ministry of an priest or bishop ordained with the sacrament of Holy Order, can pray the Holy Spirit to do the Change.

The bread and wine is the body and blood of Christ. We do not speculate about it beyond that.

We do not view the Eucharist as the sacrifice of Christ. That was conducted once and was sufficient for all time.

[Colabomb]

I had no idea the Anglicans have the same belief about the Eucharist that EO have.

Which is why i am glad this forum exists.

While I do not share his view, I know a Ukranian Orthodox Bishop, who sees (conservative) Anglicanism as a western Orthodoxy, the native Church of England.

Again, I believe in a different view than he does, but it points out how much we share.

About the Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, people should make sure not to make assumptions about our beliefs. Yes many Anglicans are memorialists, but the vast majority of us believe in the Real Presence.

When we say symbolize, we believe that a Thing can be something, and symbolize something simultaneously. A fist is both a balled up hand, and a symbol of Power. A book is a bound group of papers, and a symbol of knowledge and learning.

The Eucharist can literally be the Body and Blood of Christ, yet represent many other things simultaneously.

[a_ntv]

We do not view the Eucharist as the sacrifice of Christ. That was conducted once and was sufficient for all time.

We think with a human mind.

God is the lord of the Time too.

The sacrifice of the Cross happend once, but the Eucharist is the very same sacrifice of the Cross re.newed for us.

And form the Altar (Christ's tomb) He ressurects

How? it is a mistery.

We dont measure the Eucharist with a human mind, keeping only what we can understand, as the Anglican do.

[Albion]

Yes, the difference of believing in that it is a Mystery as to how and when is what I was referring to. I had assumed the Anglicans had taken the RCC stance.

Oh no, certainly not that. Yet I can see why that would seem logical.

I'd say that the most common view among Anglicans is that how the change occurs is a mystery, just that it is the real body and blood of Christ.

[Albion]

The sacrifice of the Cross happend once, but the Eucharist is the very same sacrifice of the Cross re.newed for us.

Well, that does represent a difference from us. We consider the Eucharist to be sacrificial, but only to the extent that we offer ourselves in a sense and that it is a sacrifice of praise and worship.

We dont measure the Eucharist with a human mind, keeping only what we can understand, as the Anglican do.

We don't suppose that we should make speculatations on matters that are above human understanding into doctrinal teaching.

[Albion]

Yes many Anglicans are memorialists, but the vast majority of us believe in the Real Presence.

As you know, I am a supporter of the Articles of Religion. Here's a case where it may be worth pointing out that the Articles reject a memorialist view of the Lord's Supper. That being so, those who adhere to them...and those who take the more "Anglo-Catholic" approach to both the Articles and to the Eucharist itself are in agreement that our churches are not adherents of the memorialist view. Although you said that "many are memorialists," I think the number is small, actually.

[a_ntv]

We don't suppose that we should make speculatations on matters that are above human understanding into doctrinal teaching.
Also God is a matter that is above human understanding
But we shall speak about God.

We cannot keep a mountain in our pockets (our pockets are to little), but we can start to climb it, perhaps from opposite sides.

Think to the Fathers: they spoke a lot about God, about matters that are above human understanding, about the Trinity also (and also about the Eucharist)

St Cyrill of Jerusalem called the Eucharist "the Holy and most awesome SACRIFICE set on the altar" (Mystological Sermon 5:10)
Sacrifice set on the altar. Not food set on the table. It is also food on the the table, but not it is also a sacrifice set on the altar.

[Simon_Templar]

Yes, the difference of believing in that it is a Mystery as to how and when is what I was referring to. I had assumed the Anglicans had taken the RCC stance.
As with everything in Anglicanism, you will find variance. There are quite a few Anglo-Catholics aroung who pretty much hold the RCC view.

I don't think there is anything really wrong with the RCC view. I think the arguments between Transsub, Conssub, and all that is largely the result of confusion over the meaning of the terms involved.

[Albion]

We call it ALTAR, not Table.

It's not called an Altar for the reason of not wanting to have it seem that we agree with the RC on this.

Not simply a table, like the one you can find in a restorant

What did Christ use at the Last Supper?

The anglican canon of the Mass is very ambigous

We understand that those who are not familiar with Anglicanism can think that. It's not uncommon.

- there is an actual change in the bread before the Mass and the Bread after the Mass We'd agree to that.

- the Holy Bread after the Mass IS (to be) the Body of Chirst. The verb 'to simbolize' is wrong. We'd agree again.

- the Change happen ONLY for the work of the Holy Spirt. The faithfulls faith, memory, mind, feeling, remembrance is completly uselss for the Change to happen We'd agree.

- the Sanctified Bread remains the Body of Christ even if no human people think to it. Huh?

- the Mass is the very one sacrifice of the Cross: not a repeatiotion, nor simply a re-mind of it. It happens on the escatological time, not on the human time. We' don't speculate like that, just take what scripture tells us.

- only the Church, by the ministry of an priest or bishop ordained with the sacrament of Holy Order, can pray the Holy Spirit to do the Change. That's our practice.

If you believe these points, we have the same faith on this issue

Close, at any rate.

[Albion]

Also God is a matter that is above human understanding
But we shall speak about God.

You're speaking of the existence and some of the facts about God that we know only because he revealed them to us. You are far from understanding all about God.

St Cyrill of Jerusalem called the Eucharist "the Holy and most awesome SACRIFICE set on the altar"

Good for him. Many Christian thinkers throughout history have theorized about the things that will be known by us after this life has ended. We respect all of them but we don't base our beliefs on man's speculations.

[Albion]

As with everything in Anglicanism, you will find variance. There are quite a few Anglo-Catholics aroung who pretty much hold the RCC view.

I don't think there is anything really wrong with the RCC view. I think the arguments between Transsub, Conssub, and all that is largely the result of confusion over the meaning of the terms involved.

That sounds then like you do NOT, in fact, find nothing to be "wrong with the RCC view," because the RCC does not hold that anything but the RCC view (transubstantiation) is correct and does not consider the differences with Consubstantiation, for example, to be terminology...or up for discussion.;)

[a_ntv]

You're speaking of the existence and some of the facts about God that we know only because he revealed them to us. You are far from understanding all about God.Please explain me why you say that I'm trying to understand all about God.

I simply wrote that the sacrifice of the altar is the same sacrifice of the Cross.
Where is the will to keep all the Eucharist in my pocket?
The fact that in many churches (not only protestant) the doctrine is reduced to a 'le's love' dont means that we cannot say something. Not to say all, but to say samething.


Good for him. Many Christian thinkers throughout history have theorized about the things that will be known by us after this life has ended. We respect all of them but we don't base our beliefs on man's speculations.
It was not only St Cyrill of Jerusalem. I can quote lots of Fathers, from St Ambrose (in Italy) to St Ephrem in Syria.
And we have the ancient anaphoras of the III-IV century: in all of them the sacrifical meaning is present, while the 'comunitary meal' is not present.
Think as instance at the Papyr of Strabourg of the II century !!

[Simon_Templar]

That sounds then like you do NOT, in fact, find nothing to be "wrong with the RCC view," because the RCC does not hold that anything but the RCC view (transubstantiation) is correct and does not consider the differences with Consubstantiation, for example, to be terminology...or up for discussion.;)
hehe right, :) I just meant I have no problem with transubstantiation when it is properly understood.

[Mary of Bethany]

As with everything in Anglicanism, you will find variance. There are quite a few Anglo-Catholics aroung who pretty much hold the RCC view.

I don't think there is anything really wrong with the RCC view. I think the arguments between Transsub, Conssub, and all that is largely the result of confusion over the meaning of the terms involved.

It's not simply the confusion I don't like - I truly don't like trying to define something that is really beyond definition/understanding by us. We define things just enough to create a boundary between what is acceptable, orthodox understanding, and what is heresy. I love the Orthodox (and often Anglican) reliance on Holy Mystery for so many things. Christianity is so full of paradoxes, and we finally just have to accept that they are true, because they are unexplainable. :)

My ACC priest tended to have the "undefined" view of Eucharistic, but then he was greatly influenced by Orthodoxy, so I don't know how "mainstream" he was in ACC beliefs.

[Secundulus]

It was not only St Cyrill of Jerusalem. I can quote lots of Fathers, from St Ambrose (in Italy) to St Ephrem in Syria.
And we have the ancient anaphoras of the III-IV century: in all of them the sacrifical meaning is present, while the 'comunitary meal' is not present.
Think as instance at the Papyr of Strabourg of the II century !!

You are correct that this belief began in the late in the third and fourth centuries. However, if you look at the earliest surviving liturgy, Hippolytus (early third century), you will find an understanding much closer to an Anglican belief than to what later became dominant in the Roman Liturgy.


The Eucharist is a sacrifice of thanksgiving. It is initially a thank offering on the model of that previously practiced in the Jewish Temple.
We recall to God's attention the sacrifice of Christ and the eternal covenant he made with the Church.
In it we eat the body and blood of Christ.
He makes the effects of his sacrifice present and operable in us.
We are united with Christ and with each other in the Body of Christ.And yes, it requires a validly ordained priest to make it real.

[Albion]

Please explain me why you say that I'm trying to understand all about God.

You were taking exception to me saying that we tend to avoid speculating on matters that are above human understanding. You replied by saying that we speak of God without understanding him.

Yes, but my point was that although you SPEAK of God, you aren't making a doctrine or teaching out of what you don't know about him (unlike the way you explained your approach to the Eucharist).

[Albion]

The Eucharist is a sacrifice of thanksgiving. It is initially a thank offering on the model of that previously practiced in theJewish Temple.

We recall to God's attention the sacrifice of Christ and the eternal covenant he made with the Church.
In it we eat the body and blood of Christ.
He makes the effects of his sacrifice present and operable in us.
We are united with Christ and with each other in the Body of Christ.And yes, it requires a validly ordained priest to make it real.

And in so doing, you've given our friends a good overview there of what most Anglicans believe.

[Albion]

My ACC priest tended to have the "undefined" view of Eucharistic, but then he was greatly influenced by Orthodoxy, so I don't know how "mainstream" he was in ACC beliefs.

I think, really, that this is pretty much mainstream for Anglicans. Even if we adhere to the Articles' wording that the true body and blood of Christ are given in an heavenly and spiritual manner, we are still considering the change to be beyond definition. And then there is the rejection of Transubstantion as being an improper definition...so, another statement from us leaning away from defining what can't be defined when it comes to the Eucharist.

[Colabomb]

When I hold the host in my hand, i can say, "This is Christ's Body", when I drink from the cup I can say "This is Christ's Blood". I cannot say anymore than that, because that is all my Lord has told me on the matter. I think speculations and discussions on the various theories are wonderful, but when it comes down to it, no one here will ever understand the mystery.

And to enforce your view on a very complicated and ethereal matter is if you ask me a bit prideful. Weren't Christ's Words at the Last Supper Enough? If we needed to know more, he would have told us more. He certainly didn't seem to fill in his Closest Friends and first Apostles on the details before he let them partake, so I don't think the details are as important as many think they are.

[Albion]

When I hold the host in my hand, i can say, "This is Christ's Body", when I drink from the cup I can say "This is Christ's Blood". I cannot say anymore than that, because that is all my Lord has told me on the matter. I think speculations and discussions on the various theories are wonderful, but when it comes down to it, no one here will ever understand the mystery.

And to enforce your view on a very complicated and ethereal matter is if you ask me a bit prideful. Weren't Christ's Words at the Last Supper Enough? If we needed to know more, he would have told us more. He certainly didn't seem to fill in his Closest Friends and first Apostles on the details before he let them partake, so I don't think the details are as important as many think they are.

:thumbsup:

[a_ntv]

You are correct that this belief began in the late in the third and fourth centuries. However, if you look at the earliest surviving liturgy, Hippolytus (early third century),
Well, there are older documents like the Paporus of Strabourg, but also in the anaphora of Hyppolitus (that anyway was only a proposal but it was never used by Hyppolitus in Rome) we clearly have the 'gifts' called 'offerts', 'offerings'
That a typical sacrifical wording.
Also the Roman Canon, that is older than the IV century, has lots of sacrifical wordings. Or think to the Anaphora of Addai and Mari.

The anaphora of Hyppolitus became famous in the 1949 due to a famous work of Dix, the shape of liturgy. A text nowdays extremply criticized by all the scolars of any Church, simply because it choosed und used part of ancient liturgies to justify modern uses, forgetting to analyze all the material in a scientific way.

The Eucharist is a sacrifice of thanksgiving. It is initially a thank offering on the model of that previously practiced in the Jewish Temple. More or less correct. Actually there were two models: the blessing before the meals and the shema said by the Jews who lived out from the Palestinia in place of the the Temple offerings
(PS in the temple the Jews made sacrifices...= slaughtered animals..up to 100.000 lambs in a day)
We recall to God's attention the sacrifice of Christ and the eternal covenant he made with the Church. God has no need to be recalled. The Eucharist IS the same sacrifice of the Cross. Also because the Body is only one. It is our way to truly partecipate to the sacrifice of the Cross, to have it happening for us now, and not only 2000 years ago
In it we eat the body and blood of Christ. The Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ even if we dont eat it. It is objectivly the Body of Christ, not subjectvly. So, after the Mass, the Bread remains the Body of Christ.
He makes the effects of his sacrifice present and operable in us. Correct. Well..the fruits of His sacrifice depends also on our heart...
Anyway to speak of effects is very limitative. We prafer say that the eucharist makes us became more and more Christ-like
We are united with Christ and with each other in the Body of Christ. correct
And yes, it requires a validly ordained priest to make it real.This is not enough. the ordination shallk by done by the Sacrament of Holy Order, not by other humans cerimonies

[a_ntv]

I cannot say anymore than that, because that is all my Lord has told me on the matter. I think speculations and discussions on the various theories are wonderful, but when it comes down to it, no one here will ever understand the mystery.

And about the Trinity? what can we say according you? Nothing, nor we should use the term Trinity that is not in the Bible
And about Jesus? can we say He is True Man and True God? Not according your opinion, because it is a mistery and Jesus did not made any statment about that
And about God? He too is a mystery. Noone know about Him but the Son, and we know only what the Son told us. So let's burn all theology books, let's close all the seminaries, let's anathemize all the Father, acoording your statment

You are saying that the Truth is not knowlable.

That means that it is useless to look for the Truth, that there are as many truths are many people are on the earth.

We can not understand the Truth, but we can know a little (enough) about it.

[Secundulus]

Well, there are older documents like the Paporus of Strabourg, but also in the anaphora of Hyppolitus (that anyway was only a proposal but it was never used by Hyppolitus in Rome) we clearly have the 'gifts' called 'offerts', 'offerings'
That a typical sacrifical wording.
Also the Roman Canon, that is older than the IV century, has lots of sacrifical wordings. Or think to the Anaphora of Addai and Mari.

I agree with you entirely. The Eucharist has always been understood as a sacrifice. Paul testifies to this in 1 Corinthians.

I fully reject the Calvanist view of the communion as nothing more than a memorial meal. This is both contrary to scripture and tradition.

I agree that the Anaphora of Addai and Mari use sacrificial language. I have it right here in my book. It does not support either of our arguments definitively.

The question is, what type of sacrifice were they thinking of. Was it the sacrifice of Christ or was it a Sacrifice of Thanksgiving by the people?

The Eucharist, translated, means thanksgiving in English.

The anaphora of Hyppolitus became famous in the 1949 due to a famous work of Dix, the shape of liturgy. A text nowdays extremply criticized by all the scolars of any Church, simply because it choosed und used part of ancient liturgies to justify modern uses, forgetting to analyze all the material in a scientific way.

I just finished reading Dix. I do not agree with his assessment that the Eucharist grew out of a Jewish fellowship meal. However, even if it did, by not later than around 53 AD, the Church understood the Eucharist in the context of sacrifice as testified by Paul in 1 Cor.

The Eucharist is a sacrifice of thanksgiving. It is initially a thank offering on the model of that previously practiced in the Jewish Temple.


More or less correct. Actually there were two models: the blessing before the meals and the shema said by the Jews who lived out from the Palestinia in place of the the Temple offerings
(PS in the temple the Jews made sacrifices...= slaughtered animals..up to 100.000 lambs in a day)

It is useful to remember also, that in the Jewish Thank Offering made in the Temple, the sacrifice of an animal was optional. A sacrifice of wine and bread was also valid. Josephus writes this in the Antiquities of the Jews.

We recall to God's attention the sacrifice of Christ and the eternal covenant he made with the Church.

God has no need to be recalled. The Eucharist IS the same sacrifice of the Cross. Also because the Body is only one. It is our way to truly partecipate to the sacrifice of the Cross, to have it happening for us now, and not only 2000 years ago

But this is the original meaning of remembrence "anamnesis" in the institution narrative. This is what it meant in the 1st Century world to those people, both Jew and Gentile, to whom sacrifice was a regular part of their worship.

In it we eat the body and blood of Christ.
The Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ even if we dont eat it. It is objectivly the Body of Christ, not subjectvly. So, after the Mass, the Bread remains the Body of Christ.
I agree, which is why we keep it in a tabernacle with a sanctuary light always burning.
He makes the effects of his sacrifice present and operable in us.
Correct. Well..the fruits of His sacrifice depends also on our heart...
Anyway to speak of effects is very limitative. We prafer say that the eucharist makes us became more and more Christ-like
I agree.
We are united with Christ and with each other in the Body of Christ.
correct
And yes, it requires a validly ordained priest to make it real.This is not enough. the ordination shallk by done by the Sacrament of Holy Order, not by other humans cerimonies
I think we agree here. I mean that the priest must be one who is validly ordained by Bishops in Apostolic succession and who consecrates the bread and wine in the manner specified in the Liturgy.

[Colabomb]

And about the Trinity? what can we say according you? Nothing, nor we should use the term Trinity that is not in the Bible
And about Jesus? can we say He is True Man and True God? Not according your opinion, because it is a mistery and Jesus did not made any statment about that
And about God? He too is a mystery. Noone know about Him but the Son, and we know only what the Son told us. So let's burn all theology books, let's close all the seminaries, let's anathemize all the Father, acoording your statment

You have made Great assumptions here. I believe the Trinity because we know it through divine revelation. I know of the Nature of Christ because of Divine Revelation. I know of God because of Divine Revelation.

As opposed to human speculation, which is where most Eucharistic Theology comes from.

I never said burn theology Books. I never said cast out the fathers, I never said destroy the seminaries. You are reacting against an assumption about what I said, rather than what I actually said.

You are saying that the Truth is not knowlable.I say no such thing. The Truth is knowable and it is concrete. But it is only knowable through divine Revelation, not human reasoning.

That means that it is useless to look for the Truth, that there are as many truths are many people are on the earth.Anyone who knows me brother would never consider me a relativist. It is apparent you do not know me. I feel you are making assumptions.

We can not understand the Truth, but we can know a little (enough) about it.We can understand that which God revealed. He has revealed that the Eucharist is his body and blood. Roman Catholic theologians added the rest which came to be known as Transubstantiation.

Only that which is revealed.

Perhaps I should have written "I cannot knowledgeably say anymore".

And yes the Truth is knowable. But only that which is revealed. We can only know that which God gives us to know. Are you telling me that you can know more about God than he has revealed? I hope not.

All of our Knowledge of must come from Divine Revelation, otherwise it is mere speculation.


You have already made assumptions about other people on this thread who happen to be anglican. Please read what we have to say without an apologetics lens on, and see what we actually have to say

[a_ntv]

The question is, what type of sacrifice were they thinking of. Was it the sacrifice of Christ or was it a Sacrifice of Thanksgiving by the people?

The Eucharist, translated, means thanksgiving in English.
I just finished reading Dix. I do not agree with his assessment that the Eucharist grew out of a Jewish fellowship meal. However, even if it did, by not later than around 53 AD, the Church understood the Eucharist in the context of sacrifice as testified by Paul in 1 Cor.

It is useful to remember also, that in the Jewish Thank Offering made in the Temple, the sacrifice of an animal was optional. A sacrifice of wine and bread was also valid. Josephus writes this in the Antiquities of the Jews.


Well....the sacrifices in the Temple were not of 'thanksgiving'
They were mainly of two types: of comunion (like the easter one), or of espiation for the sins.
There was always a sacrifice: possible a lamb (very expensive), or a dove (cheaper) or, only for poor poeple who couldnot affor, some flour (not bread) or other base aliments.
The sacrifices at the temple were always made in silent. There was not a need of a prayer, unlike in the christian mass. The Jewish priest was actually a sluaghter: he prepared the animal and burned part of it on the altar.

Then there was the shema, a great prayer of blessing (We bless you for) united with Is 6,1 (sanctus). This prayer offerend nothing, and it was used also out from Palestina, in place of the Temple worship.

On the other side there was the 'thankgiving' before the meal, particulary the easter meal, where bred and wine were used (the father took (an still take between the Jews) a chalice and said 'we thank you for...', and the later took the bread and said "we thanks you for", in the same order we find in Luke (chaliche, bread, chalice).

According the Jews mind, quite illogical for our point of view, each time they liturgically celebrated the easter, they dont only made memory of the escape of Egypt, but the help of the Lord was made present. It was not only a historical recall, but a live again the power of the Lord.

Ok, let's pass to the Eucharist.

We can exclude it cames form the Temple sacrifices: the book of the Hebrew is very clear on it. There is no more need of sacrifices because of Christ's one. Christ is by Himself the full victim, the High Priest and the Perfect Altar. On a liturgical base, the temple liturgy lacked of any prayer said by the priest: it was only an acting. Nothing of such liturgy came in the christian Eucharist (also because the Jewish Temple Liturgy was vary similar to the pagan liturgies)

A good explanation of the Eucharist is the Jewish Thanksgiving before the meals (birakhamon): it was made of three part: a thanksgiving for the work God mase in the past (our preface), the thanksgiving for present grace (the remind of Jesus incarnation up to the last supper), the prayer for Israel (the prayer for the unity of the church, that later developed in the epiclesis).
This is typical of the antiochene anaphoras like the Hyppolitos one, but it cannot explain other parts of the canon, or other ancient anaphoras.

So we are quite sure that elsewhere, particulary in Alexandria and Rome, the base of the Eucharist was the Shema, said in place of the Temple liturgy. Here we find the Sanctus, and a more deep sacrifical wording and the use of the verb 'to bless'. There was a refence to Malachy propecy (see my signature), and it called the sacrifice as: pure, bloodless, rational (=of the logos, of the Son).

The mix of these two traditions made the IV century anaphoras, some of them without many changes (like the roman canon or hyppolitus), others written anew as literal masterpiece (St Basil one).

Conclusion:
- the Temple sacrifices were not a thankgiving: they were co-union or espiation sacrifice. The Christian liturgy is not a contination of such liturgies
- the liturgical origins of the Mass are the thankgiving before the meals and the shema outside Jerusalem
- According the Jewish mind, the litugy is not only an historicall recall of a past event, but a renew it, a make it present for us: it is this meaning we, catholics, still have when we say that the Eucharist is the same sacrifice of the Cross.

If you are interested I suggest you to read something better (and more recent) than Dix:
- Louis Bouyer: Theology and Spirituality of the Eucharist (http://www.amazon.com/Eucharist-Theology-Spirituality-Eucharistic-Prayer/dp/0268004986/ref=sr_1_3/103-3783521-8003827?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1186817300&sr=1-3) (the best)
- Enrico Mazza: The Celebration of the Eucharist: The Origin of the Rite and the Development of Its Interpretation (http://www.amazon.com/Celebration-Eucharist-Origin-Development-Interpretation/dp/081466170X/ref=pd_sim_b_2/103-3783521-8003827?ie=UTF8&qid=1186817539&sr=1-3)
- Paul Brashaw Early Christian Worship: A Basic Introduction to Ideas and Practice (http://www.amazon.com/Early-Christian-Worship-Introduction-Practice/dp/0814624294/ref=sr_1_3/103-3783521-8003827?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1186817539&sr=1-3) (by an Anglican, but published also by the Vatican Press)

[Secundulus]

10 ‘Every grain offering, mixed with oil or dry, shall belong to all the sons of Aaron, to all alike.
11 ‘Now this is the law of the sacrifice of peace offerings which shall be presented to the Lord.
12 ‘If he offers it by way of thanksgiving, then along with the sacrifice of thanksgiving he shall offer unleavened cakes mixed with oil, and unleavened wafers spread with oil, and cakes of well stirred fine flour mixed with oil.
13 ‘With the sacrifice of his peace offerings for thanksgiving, he shall present his offering with cakes of leavened bread.
14 ‘Of this he shall present one of every offering as a contribution to the Lord; it shall belong to the priest who sprinkles the blood of the peace offerings.
15 ‘Now as for the flesh of the sacrifice of his thanksgiving peace offerings, it shall be eaten on the day of his offering; he shall not leave any of it over until morning.

New American Standard Bible : 1995 Update. Lev 7:10-15


The Peace-offering

IV. The most joyous of all sacrifices was the peace-offering, or, as from its derivation it might also be rendered, the offering of completion, This was, indeed, a season of happy fellowship with the Covenant God, in which He condescended to become Israel’s Guest at the sacrificial meal, even as He was always their Host. Thus it symbolised the spiritual truth expressed in Rev. 3:20, ‘Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear My voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with Me.’ In peace-offerings the sacrificial meal was the point of main importance. Hence the name ‘Sevach,’ by which it is designated in the Pentateuch, and which means ‘slaying,’ in reference to a meal. It is this sacrifice which is so frequently referred to in the Book of Psalms as the grateful homage of a soul justified and accepted before God. If, on the one hand, then, the ‘offering of completion’ indicated that there was complete peace with God, on the other, it was also literally the offering of completeness. The peace-offerings were either public or private. The two lambs offered every year at Pentecost were a public peace-offering, and the only one which was regarded as ‘most holy.’ As such they were sacrificed at the north side of the altar, and their flesh eaten only by the officiating priests, and within the Holy Place. The other public peace-offerings were slain at the south side, and their ‘inwards’ burnt on the altar. Then, after the priests had received their due, the rest was to be eaten by the offerers themselves, either within the courts of the Temple or in Jerusalem. On one occasion (1 Kings 8:63) no less than 22,000 oxen and 120,000 sheep were so offered. Private peace-offerings were of a threefold kind: ‘sacrifices of thanksgiving,’ ‘vows,’ and strictly ‘voluntary offerings.’ The first were in general acknowledgment of mercies received; the last, the free gift of loving hearts, as even the use of the same term in Ex. 25:2, 35:29 implies. Exceptionally in this last case, an animal that had anything either ‘defective’ or ‘superfluous’ might be offered.


Edersheim, Alfred: The Temple, Its Ministry and Services as They Were at the Time of Jesus Christ. Bellingham, WA : Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2003, S. 134

[Secundulus]

Conclusion:
- the Temple sacrifices were not a thankgiving: they were co-union or espiation sacrifice. The Christian liturgy is not a contination of such liturgies.


As shown above, there were Thanksgiving sacrifices in the temple.

- the liturgical origins of the Mass are the thankgiving before the meals and the shema outside Jerusalem

This is debatable and not all scholars agree. In the end though, it is not the critical point. The important thing is what it means in the Liturgy right now,


- According the Jewish mind, the litugy is not only an historicall recall of a past event, but a renew it, a make it present for us:


I agree entirely. It is a renewal, but is not a repetition.

it is this meaning we, catholics, still have when we say that the Eucharist is the same sacrifice of the Cross.

It is the same Christ as was sacrificed on the cross. We would say it is a renewal of the covenant made on the cross, not a repetition of the crucifixion.

The wine and bread are the body and blood of Christ.

The blood prefigured in the covenant sacrifice of Moses at Sinai, Exodus 24:8, and the body prefigured in the Shewbread of the Temple, from Hippolytus.

Both meant the same thing to the Jews as they mean to us. They were God's presence with his people and a sign of the eternal covenant.

[a_ntv]

As shown above, there were Thanksgiving sacrifices in the temple.

I checked on Ed Parish Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief, 63 BCE-66 CE, Trinity Press 1992
The term 'thankgiving', is an unproper translation for the 'comunion' sacrifices.

Apart from the translation, they were sacrifices: lamb, or dove, or flour (for the poors) were offered, that means slaughtered.

As instance the sacrifice of the lambs at the Jew's Easter was a communion sacririce (you would say thanksgiving)
Also the two daily olocausts, at morning and at eve, were communion sacrifices.

It was not the Jews offered bread and wine to say 'We thank you God for....'
But the Jews made sacrifices (=slaughtered animals, possibly) for obbedience to the covenant, to make present the covenant, for propitiatory purposes.

Anyway it is called "Eucharistoi" (=giving thanks) not because it was a new way to operate the Temple sacrifices, but simply from the first words used in the anaphora, the words that the Catholic Church still uses in the preface "Father, it is our duty and salvation, always and everywhere to give you thanks through your beloved Son, Jesus Christ....."

To explain better the catholics view about the sacrifical meaning of the Eucharist, considering it placed into the liturgical time (the litugy is not only an historicall recall of a past event, but a renew it, a make it present for us), here from our cathechism (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a3.htm#V):

1358 We must therefore consider the Eucharist as:
- thanksgiving and praise to the Father;
- the sacrificial memorial of Christ and his Body;
- the presence of Christ by the power of his word and of his Spirit.

1363 In the sense of Sacred Scripture the memorial is not merely the recollection of past events but the proclamation of the mighty works wrought by God for men. In the liturgical celebration of these events, they become in a certain way present and real. This is how Israel understands its liberation from Egypt: every time Passover is celebrated, the Exodus events are made present to the memory of believers so that they may conform their lives to them.


1365 Because it is the memorial of Christ's Passover, the Eucharist is also a sacrifice. The sacrificial character of the Eucharist is manifested in the very words of institution: "This is my body which is given for you" and "This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in my blood."187 In the Eucharist Christ gives us the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he "poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit:

1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory."

1388 The Eucharist is also the sacrifice of the Church. The Church which is the Body of Christ participates in the offering of her Head. With him, she herself is offered whole and entire. She unites herself to his intercession with the Father for all men. In the Eucharist the sacrifice of Christ becomes also the sacrifice of the members of his Body. The lives of the faithful, their praise, sufferings, prayer, and work, are united with those of Christ and with his total offering, and so acquire a new value. Christ's sacrifice present on the altar makes it possible for all generations of Christians to be united with his offering.

The protestants started to say that the Eucharist is not the same sacrifice of the cross, but simply a historical recall of it.
Then the protestants stated that the Eucharist is simply a meal on a table to say thanks to Christ
As logic result, the protestants say that the presence of Christ depends on the faithfull faith, and so the verb 'to be' became 'to simboloze'.

I dont know exactly you, as Anglican, in which step of the this process you are. But if you deny that the Eucharist is the same sacrifice of the cross, all other steps are simply logic results.

[Secundulus]

Anyway it is called "Eucharistoi" (=giving thanks) not because it was a new way to operate the Temple sacrifices, but simply from the first words used in the anaphora, the words that the Catholic Church still uses in the preface "Father, it is our duty and salvation, always and everywhere to give you thanks through your beloved Son, Jesus Christ....."

To explain better the catholics view about the sacrifical meaning of the Eucharist, considering it placed into the liturgical time (the litugy is not only an historicall recall of a past event, but a renew it, a make it present for us), here from our cathechism (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a3.htm#V):


I never meant to infer that it was a new way of operating the Temple. Simply that the Jews of the first century may have inferred what they knew from their history of Temple practice into this new thing instituted by Christ. That is not a revolutionary idea since Paul inferred all sorts of things about Christianity from the Old Testament.

When you quote the words from the Roman Catechism, I don't think we believe any differently. I think it says essentially the same thing I have said, perhaps poorly.

I would hope that some other Anglicans might comment on this.



The protestants started to say that the Eucharist is not the same sacrifice of the cross, but simply a historical recall of it.
Then the protestants stated that the Eucharist is simply a meal on a table to say thanks to Christ
As logic result, the protestants say that the presence of Christ depends on the faithfull faith, and so the verb 'to be' became 'to simboloze'.

When you say Protestants, my impression is that you have in mind those Continental Protestants who reformed under the traditions of John Calvin. Their belief in the Eucharist is receptionism which is the belief that the Eucharist is not the body and blood of Christ.

We are not them. We do not believe as they do. We did not believe as they did in 1525 when the schism occurred. We have never believed as they do. Our schism occurred for political differences between the King and the Pope and had nothing to do with theology.

We believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist minus the attempt to explain the process through transubstantiation.

I dont know exactly you, as Anglican, in which step of the this process you are. But if you deny that the Eucharist is the same sacrifice of the cross, all other steps are simply logic results.

The Anglican Church believes that the body and blood of Christ present in the Eucharist is the same body and blood of Christ present on the Cross. This belief is entirely consistent with your Catechism, para 1367. Your catechism does not even say it is the same sacrifice but rather that the same Christ is present in both sacrifices. It also says nothing of transubstantiation.

Again, I would hope that some other Anglicans might comment in case I am assuming too much of what other Anglicans believe.

[a_ntv]

I never meant to infer that it was a new way of operating the Temple. Simply that the Jews of the first century may have inferred what they knew from their history of Temple practice into this new thing instituted by Christ. That is not a revolutionary idea since Paul inferred all sorts of things about Christianity from the Old Testament. Ok, after explanations we understood we believe the same think. That is nice :)
Read ad instance our cathechism
1334 In the Old Covenant bread and wine were offered in sacrifice among the first fruits of the earth as a sign of grateful acknowledgment to the Creator. But they also received a new significance in the context of the Exodus: the unleavened bread that Israel eats every year at Passover commemorates the haste of the departure that liberated them from Egypt; the remembrance of the manna in the desert will always recall to Israel that it lives by the bread of the Word of God; their daily bread is the fruit of the promised land, the pledge of God's faithfulness to his promises. The "cup of blessing" at the end of the Jewish Passover meal adds to the festive joy of wine an eschatological dimension: the messianic expectation of the rebuilding of Jerusalem. When Jesus instituted the Eucharist, he gave a new and definitive meaning to the blessing of the bread and the cup. The Anglican Church believes that the body and blood of Christ present in the Eucharist is the same body and blood of Christ present on the Cross. This belief is entirely consistent with your Catechism, para 1367. Your catechism does not even say it is the same sacrifice but rather that the same Christ is present in both sacrifices. Not two sacrifices, but the one single sacrifice 1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice:.... It also says nothing of transubstantiation.. You can read the page of the cathechism about "The Sacramental Sacrifice Thanksgiving, Memorial, Presence" here (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P41.HTM) or the whole chpter about the Eucharist (here (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3W.HTM))
Our cathechism is not technically infallible, but very good one
1374 ...In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained."This presence is called 'real' - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be 'real' too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present."

1375 It is by the conversion of the bread and wine into Christ's body and blood that Christ becomes present in this sacrament. the Church Fathers strongly affirmed the faith of the Church in the efficacy of the Word of Christ and of the action of the Holy Spirit to bring about this conversion.
Thus St. John Chrysostom declares: It is not man that causes the things offered to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but he who was crucified for us, Christ himself. the priest, in the role of Christ, pronounces these words, but their power and grace are God's. This is my body, he says. This word transforms the things offered

1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."

[No Swansong]

Well Secundulus I haven't stepped in simply because I do not possess your apologetic abilities. But I can respond as one who is mostly from the reformed end of the spectrum that you are correct in that the Anglican Church has never denied that Christ is really and truly present in the Eucharist. And that He is the same Christ as was sacrificed. As you or someone else pointed out we do not believe that how He is present has been revealed thus we tend to keep silent about it. But we have as far as I know always maintained faith in the Real Presence of Christ in the eucharist.

[Albion]

I would hope that some other Anglicans might comment on this.

You can imagine that I am interested to read how you explain us to our non-Anglican brothers, especially since we tend towards somewhat different places on the Anglican spectrum. In short, I think you have expressed this very well here, as you normally do. I hope very much that all those who read it, will read it carefully, since I know that you have tried hard to explain what we believe, accounting for the Anglican variances that are, nevertheless, within the mainstream.

Only this little item comes to mind as an exception to what you wrote here. Orthodox Calvinists do believe in the Real Presence although the way they do ithat s somewhat unlike the way we approach the subject. It isn't representationalism or memorialism, a POV more associated with Zwingli. But hey, that polint isn't even about Anglicans, and most members of Reformed churches probably don't appreciate it anyway.

[Aymn27]

I checked on Ed Parish Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief, 63 BCE-66 CE, Trinity Press 1992
The term 'thankgiving', is an unproper translation for the 'comunion' sacrifices.

Apart from the translation, they were sacrifices: lamb, or dove, or flour (for the poors) were offered, that means slaughtered.

As instance the sacrifice of the lambs at the Jew's Easter was a communion sacririce (you would say thanksgiving)
Also the two daily olocausts, at morning and at eve, were communion sacrifices.

It was not the Jews offered bread and wine to say 'We thank you God for....'
But the Jews made sacrifices (=slaughtered animals, possibly) for obbedience to the covenant, to make present the covenant, for propitiatory purposes.

Anyway it is called "Eucharistoi" (=giving thanks) not because it was a new way to operate the Temple sacrifices, but simply from the first words used in the anaphora, the words that the Catholic Church still uses in the preface "Father, it is our duty and salvation, always and everywhere to give you thanks through your beloved Son, Jesus Christ....."

To explain better the catholics view about the sacrifical meaning of the Eucharist, considering it placed into the liturgical time (the litugy is not only an historicall recall of a past event, but a renew it, a make it present for us), here from our cathechism (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a3.htm#V):



The protestants started to say that the Eucharist is not the same sacrifice of the cross, but simply a historical recall of it.
Then the protestants stated that the Eucharist is simply a meal on a table to say thanks to Christ
As logic result, the protestants say that the presence of Christ depends on the faithfull faith, and so the verb 'to be' became 'to simboloze'.

I dont know exactly you, as Anglican, in which step of the this process you are. But if you deny that the Eucharist is the same sacrifice of the cross, all other steps are simply logic results.
Friend - I believe you may find this (http://anglicanhistory.org/asia/kr/1962eucharist.pdf)Eucharistic Rite rather appealing to your Roman sensibilities - enjoy!

[WarriorAngel]

It's not called an Altar for the reason of not wanting to have it seem that we agree with the RC on this.



What did Christ use at the Last Supper?



We understand that those who are not familiar with Anglicanism can think that. It's not uncommon.



Close, at any rate.

Where is the Lord's required sacrifices and Covenants celebrated?
The Jews were our fore figures to the faith...
The altar is used for the sacrifice.

Also, wanted to point out that the term and use of altar is historic.
Intersting to note that an arheological dig showed us an altar for the first Church.

It's not simply the confusion I don't like - I truly don't like trying to define something that is really beyond definition/understanding by us. We define things just enough to create a boundary between what is acceptable, orthodox understanding, and what is heresy. I love the Orthodox (and often Anglican) reliance on Holy Mystery for so many things. Christianity is so full of paradoxes, and we finally just have to accept that they are true, because they are unexplainable. :)

My ACC priest tended to have the "undefined" view of Eucharistic, but then he was greatly influenced by Orthodoxy, so I don't know how "mainstream" he was in ACC beliefs.

No one defines God, but we do not leave anything open for heretical speculation. ;)

For instance, Transubstantiation helped to counter any ideas of 'symbolism' denying the Real Presense.
Since no one can see the Presense, but the former matter, it is explaining to those who do not comprehend this...

Better to define and help some understand than to ignore the plight of many who would deny the Lord's Presense by using sensory perception alone.

Also, this will or should help those who would otherwise take the Eucharist unworthily... seeing it as bread and wine and not as it Truly is.

SO...if you saw a visitor at your Church, and they took the Eucharist and left with it, but you wanted it back...what compelling discussion would you have in explaining to them it is not bread and wine even though that is all they 'see'...?

WE know that doubting Thomas' exist.
And as the Lord helped him, we are to do the same.

BUT alas, it is still a mystery.
Just because we named the 'changes' and explained that it does change, doesnt mean we are wrong.:hug:

After all, surely you have been told it changes too.

[Aymn27]

WA - I understand the connection here but disagree with the "altar" nomenclature. Christ is our passover lamb - the sacrifice that must be consumed...He is made present to us at the "table", not the altar...His cross is our altar - His table is where we receive him. He fulfilled the OT priesthood as the NT High Priest - there is no longer need for blood offerings..by calling our "tables" , "altars" I think we are introducing some questionable theology (ie- the accusation that Roman Catholics "resacrifice" Christ at every mass)...but that's just some thoughts from my little insignificant brain :)

[WarriorAngel]

Hebrews 13:10

[Simon_Templar]

The symbolism of Christ in the Old Testament is multifaceted, thus any view which seeks to limit it to one thing, such as the passover lamb, or the thank offering, or the sin sacrifice etc, will inevitably be incomplete.

Christ is the passover lamb. This is directly where the imagery of communion is first introduced and what the celebration of communion is born out of in the New Testament.

Christ is also the lamb slain on Yom Kippur to attone for sins, he is also the scape goat of Yom Kippur who bore the sins of the people.

Christ is also the Todah sacrifice. The Todah Sacrifice is the 'thank offering' of the old testament in which a person brought bread to the temple and offered it as thanksgiving for God's provision.

In rabbinical tradition, it was held that when the messiah came to establish his kingdom, all sacrifices would cease except the todah sacrifice. This has traditionally been seen by christians as the eucharist, and the idea that the eucharist is an eternal thanksgiving offering.

None of these preclude the idea that the eucharist is also a link to the once for all sacrifice of Christ on the cross. In fact, this idea is supported by Paul when he says to the Corinthian church, 'the bread that we break is it not our participation in the body, the cup that we bless, is it not our participation in the blood'.

The idea is that communion is literally a participation in the broken body and shed blood of Christ.

[WarriorAngel]

I had a big fat post about the surrealism of the Lord, and how multi faceted He is.


For instance being the priest and victim at the altar.

Anyway, havin issues with this computer. :P
SO it all popped off.

[Albion]

Where is the Lord's required sacrifices and Covenants celebrated?

We celebrate the Lord's Supper and his sacrifice on the Cross.

The altar is used for the sacrifice.

In your church, it is. I pointed out that in our church, it is a Holy Table because that is what Jesus used when he instituted this sacrament and required it to be observed by his Apostles. Just as we would not substitute other food and drink for the bread and wine, we also would not substitute a Hebrew altar from the Old Testament for the table used in by Christ.


Intersting to note that an arheological dig showed us an altar for the first Church.

It may have looked like one since the Christians in the catecombs had the practice of using coffins. We would be guided by the Bible in this, not emergency conditions or anything improvised.

No one defines God, but we do not leave anything open for heretical speculation. ;)

Perhaps it is rather that over-speculation leads to more of it--in this case what you call heresy.

For instance, Transubstantiation helped to counter any ideas of 'symbolism' denying the Real Presense.

Much like the creation of the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. It was created in order to assert the primacy of the Pope in a time when he was losing power in Western society. But creating all these new teachings is certainly questionable, even if they served some practical purpose.

Better to define and help some understand than to ignore the plight of many who would deny the Lord's Presense by using sensory perception alone.

Better not to create doctrines which are not scriptural merely in order to strengthen in the popular mind some other doctrine which is scriptural. Manmade doctrines are inherently dangerous.

[WarriorAngel]

We celebrate the Lord's Supper and his sacrifice on the Cross.


You guys use a cross to consecrate the Eucharist on? :scratch:


In your church, it is. I pointed out that in our church, it is a Holy Table because that is what Jesus used when he instituted this sacrament and required it to be observed by his Apostles. Just as we would not substitute other food and drink for the bread and wine, we also would not substitute a Hebrew altar from the Old Testament for the table used in by Christ.

Yes, before He died...He used a table, but the Apostles who were taught the implications of the OT from Christ, used an altar.



It may have looked like one since the Christians in the catecombs had the practice of using coffins. We would be guided by the Bible in this, not emergency conditions or anything improvised.



Perhaps it is rather that over-speculation leads to more of it--in this case what you call heresy.



Much like the creation of the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. It was created in order to assert the primacy of the Pope in a time when he was losing power in Western society. But creating all these new teachings is certainly questionable, even if they served some practical purpose.

The Pope has always been historically imposed upon to ex communicate, to teach, to instruct and to oversee problems...
It was not until the Church grew that this role became a bigger burden.
And it was not until much later times after the Apostles that pride crept into the Church...
Removing his rightful authority.

Authority that overlooks and feeds the entire flock.
An authority unlike a king, but instead is least of all...and serves all.

PPL just dont get that.




Better not to create doctrines which are not scriptural merely in order to strengthen in the popular mind some other doctrine which is scriptural. Manmade doctrines are inherently dangerous.

Is it not scriptural? Really?
Or has man redefined scripture with exegesis...?

What always was understood has been thrown aside and ignored.

If it were not for the heretical misbelief of throwing off his authority in the first place in later years, there would have been no need to explain what his position was in the first place.

Ppl do not understand how all things are possible with God.
They profess this with their lips, but their hearts .... doubt.

The Church is built upon Peter, who was given the keys..
And he is to feed the sheep....all the sheep. Not just some.
ALL of Christ's sheep.

Scriptures tell us these things.

Yet, modern man denies this...and tries to tell us that God cannot use a man to keep His Church right.
Interesting and problematic, from my POV.

The gates of hell shall either prevail, or they will not.
The Church either has the authority [as Peter suggested] to understand scriptures, or they do not.
The Church either leads the sheep fully or it does not.
The Church either has a heirarchy of leaders [as NT tells us] or it does not.
The Church is either led by a leader that is the shepherd on earth doing the Lord's ministry or it does not.
The Church will either fall into heresy and evil...or it shall not.

You cannot have it two ways.

It just doesnt work. Like a square peg being pushed into a round hole.

Jesus said what would be....man or no man, His Church will be led by sinners [always has been] but that God can still overcome that.

JUST as the inerrent scriptures were always written by sinful men...
Yet we look at them as writing infallibly.

But we cannot, through our own pride, let God put sinful men in a place to keep His Church from being overcome by evil?

:o

It is just too difficult to believe both, so it is one or the other. I will stand by Christ's words...and the proof of Tradition and the catacombs.
Since they understood far better than we.

[Albion]

You guys use a cross to consecrate the Eucharist on? :scratch:

I think you misread my post.


Yes, before He died...He used a table

Then that's why we do. The Lord's Supper is primarily a reenactment of the Last Supper.

But the Apostles who were taught the implications of the OT from Christ

Not in this case.

The Pope has always been historically imposed upon to ex communicate, to teach, to instruct and to oversee problems...

All diocesan bishops operate in that way.

Authority that overlooks and feeds the entire flock.

There's no "authority" there for anyone but Peter. That's clear. And the "authority" is not authority at all but a command given to Peter who discharged it on Pentecost. Done. Great Work. Finis.


Is it not scriptural? Really?

That's correct. You virtually admitted it yourself by giving a reason for the Church to have invented this new teaching.

Or has man redefined scripture with exegesis...?

I suppose that's one way of describing "Holy Tradition."

What always was understood has been thrown aside and ignored.

Oh no. Only that which was NOT always understood a certain way was reformed. This is why it is dangerous to believe that something "always was" when it is only an allegation, not actually something that always was.

If it were not for the heretical misbelief of throwing off his authority in the first place in later years, there would have been no need to explain what his position was in the first place.

But we may just as easily say that if the heretical assumption of (Papal) powers that were unknown in the first few centuries of Christian history had not occurred, there would not have been the need to reform the Church back to Apostolic standards.

Ppl do not understand how all things are possible with God.
They profess this with their lips, but their hearts .... doubt.

I think it is rather that people understand that a theological novelty cannot be made right just by throwing a sentence like that at it.

The Church is built upon Peter

It was, yes. The foundation was laid by him on Pentecost when the masses heard the Word in their own languages and believed. This was the first surge of converts from outside those Jesus reached personally, and so this is the laying of the foundation upon which the Church--the people--was built. Aftrwards the Church grew rapidly throughout the Empire, but here's where the foundation was laid.

keys

referring to Peter and Pentecost. Nothing there about any successors or "Popes."


And he is to feed the sheep....all the sheep. Not just some.
ALL of Christ's sheep.

That's your wording. I prefer the Bible version.

modern man denies this...
tell us that God cannot use a man to keep His Church right.
Interesting and problematic, from my POV.

God CAN use a man to keep his Church right. But deciding that he DID when the Word of God doesn't show it, the early Church history doesn't show it, and the Church has never had an agreement to that effect make it just what you said--a personal preference.

The gates of hell shall either prevail, or they will not.

Since Christianity is the world's largest religion and gaining adherents every day, I'd say that the gates of Hell have NOT prevailed.


The Church either has the authority [as Peter suggested] to understand scriptures, or they do not.
The Church either leads the sheep fully or it does not.
The Church either has a heirarchy of leaders [as NT tells us] or it does not.

None of which has anything to do with a Papacy.


Church is either led by a leader that is the shepherd on earth doing the Lord's ministry or it does not.

Correct. It is either led by one person or it is led by many.

Church will either fall into heresy and evil...or it shall not.

You cannot have it two ways.

Of course you can. There is no guarantee that the Church will not make mistakes along the way or else this supposedly eans that the Gates of Hell will have prevailed against it. That isn't what "prevailed" means. And since the Roman Catholic Church has altered or changed its beliefs and teachings many times throughout history, it can hardly, as a particular institutional segment of Christ's Church, make this claim about itself.


JUST as the inerrent scriptures were always written by sinful men...
Yet we look at them as writing infallibly.

That's right. No one says that they are sinlessness is a prerequisite for writing infallibly. That wouldn't make any sense. You don't claim that the Pope has to be sinless to rule the Christian world infallibly, so you can't have any real problem understanding the Bible writers.


It is just too difficult to believe both

No, it isn't. It makes perfect sense, much more IMO than banking on something that both history and scripture do not tell us ever was. I think half of your perception is based upon believing uncritically what you've been taught, and half upon a certain logic about what God COULD have done, without addressing the obvious question "But DID he do it that way?" There's no obvious reason for having a Papacy, so there's no logic in speaking as though God just had to do it that way.

[WarriorAngel]

You are not understanding....
When Christ died, it was then His Church was established.

He taught that the sacrifices [animal oblations] of the altar would continue INSTEAD with His Body and Blood...so forth. On an altar.

To Peter 'Do you love Me?'.....'Feed my sheep.' [3 x's]
Christ choose Peter to lead His sheep and feed them [instruct them].

Handing the earthly ministry of shepherding, to Peter.

[Albion]

You are not understanding....
When Christ died, it was then His Church was established.

You are not understanding. It was when people believed and were baptised that the church was BUILT. Jesus said that upon this rock I will "build"--not found or establish--my Church.

He taught that the sacrifices [animal oblations] of the altar would continue with His Body and Blood...so forth.

Where would that be in scripture (teachibng that the temple sacrifices are the Lord's Supper?) What I see is that he said "as oft as you do THIS" i.e. take the bread and wine.

To Peter 'Do you love Me?'.....'Feed my sheep.' [3 x's]
Christ choose Peter to lead His sheep and feed them [instruct them].

Yes. The sheep are Jesus' followers. Any bishop and every Apostle ought to look after the sheep. There's nothing in that passage that confines his expectations to Peter as though the other Apostles were to go back to catching fish again after Christ's Ascension, leaving the preaching totally to Peter.

[a_ntv]

Friend - I believe you may find this (http://anglicanhistory.org/asia/kr/1962eucharist.pdf)Eucharistic Rite rather appealing to your Roman sensibilities - enjoy!

Thanks for the link

Let's read the 'te igitur' (after the sanctus...) of this liturgy:

Thanks be to thee. Almighty God, our heavenly Father, for that thou of thy tender mercy didst give thine only Son to take our nature upon him, and to suffer death upon the cross for our redemption: who by his one oblation of himself once offered, made a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world; and did institute, and command us to continue, a perpetual memory of that his precious death, until his coming again.
Hear us, O merciful Father, we most humblybeseech thee, and by thy holy Spirit vouchsafe to bless and sanctify these thy creaturesof
bread and wine, according to our Lord Jesus Christ's holy institution, who, in the same night.....

That is the standard double-faces text of Mr Cranmer, who take the III century Roman Canon and modified it to have it acceptble to his calvinist tastes.

In the Roman Canon the full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice is said of the Eucharist, not directly of the Cross.
The once of "oblation of himself once offered", clearly supports the protestant doctrine that the Eucharist is not the same sacrifice of the Cross.
The words: satisfaction for the sins of the whole world are a clear protestant innovation and addition (doctrine of the anointment).
Also the "command us to continue, a perpetual memory of that" is well acceptable by the memorialists.
The our oblation that the roman canons asks the Father to bless had became in Cranmer text the these these thy creatures of bread and wine.

So...it is a double face text, valid both for the memorialists and for the catholic.

For reference, here the original text, still used by us: Therefore, we humbly pray and beseech Thee (te igitur), most merciful Father, through Jesus Christ Thy Son, Our Lord, to receive and to bless these (+) gifts, these (+) presents, these (+) holy unspotted sacrifices, (haec dona, haec munera, haec sancta sacrificia illibata) which we offer up to Thee, in the first place, for Thy holy Catholic Church, that it may please Thee to grant her peace, to guard, unite, and guide her, throughout the world:........
Vouchsafe in all respects to bless (+), consecrate (+), and approve (+) this our oblation, to perfect it and render it well-pleasing to Thyself, (benedictam, adscriptam, ratam, rationabilem, acceptabilemque) so that it may become for us the body (+) and blood (+) of Thy most beloved Son, Jesus Christ our Lord. Who, the day before He suffered,........

[Albion]

Thanks for the link

Let's read the 'te igitur' (after the sanctus...) of this liturgy:

Thanks be to thee. Almighty God, our heavenly Father, for that thou of thy tender mercy didst give thine only Son to take our nature upon him, and to suffer death upon the cross for our redemption: who by his one oblation of himself once offered, made a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world; and did institute, and command us to continue, a perpetual memory of that his precious death, until his coming again.
Hear us, O merciful Father, we most humblybeseech thee, and by thy holy Spirit vouchsafe to bless and sanctify these thy creaturesof
bread and wine, according to our Lord Jesus Christ's holy institution, who, in the same night.....

That is the standard double-faces text of Mr Cranmer, who take the III century Roman Canon and modified it to have it acceptble to his calvinist tastes.

I'd say that it is consistent with the Bible and carries on the cadence and style of the Medieval Mass, which the Archbishop was determined to do.

In the Roman Canon the full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice is said of the Eucharist, not directly of the Cross.

And this has been corrected to accord with scripture.

The once of "oblation of himself once offered", clearly supports the protestant doctrine that the Eucharist is not the same sacrifice of the Cross.

Absolutely.

The words: satisfaction for the sins of the whole world are a clear protestant innovation and addition (doctrine of the anointment).

So you DON'T believe that Christ died for the sins of all, just the elect. You are something of a Calvinist yourself, it seems, or at least a dedicated opponent of Calvin only when it suits.

Also the "command us to continue, a perpetual memory of that" is well acceptable by the memorialists.

That may be how you read it, not being familiar with the history of this but rather analyzing off the cuff, but I will wager that even your bishop does not deny that the Supper is also a memorial, regardless of everything it may be--sacrifice, etc. Of course, we have Jesus' own words saying exactly that at the Last Supper where the sacrament was instituted, so we, being Bible conscious, are guided by that.

The our oblation that the roman canons asks the Father to bless had became in Cranmer text the these these thy creatures of bread and wine.

On the night in which He was betrayed, Christ did NOT take spice cake and Coca Cola, etc.

So...it is a double face text, valid both for the memorialists and for the catholic.

Or, you could more accurately say that it properly retains the several dimensions on which the Holy Meal exists. It IS a memorial. It IS ALSO something more than a memorial. It is the true body and blood of Christ we receive. There is no way that a memorialist could accept the wording of (Cranmer's) the Order for Holy Communion. None. So your guesswork here is quite wrong.

[a_ntv]

I'd say that it is consistent with the Bible and carries on the cadence and style of the Medieval Mass, which the Archbishop was determined to do.
And this has been corrected to accord with scripture.
Let's look at history.
All English and Western Medioeval bishops in the West used in the Mass the text I wrote in blue. No ecceptions, in every rite, Roman, Sarum, Ambroisian....this part of the Mass was the most invariable part.

Mr Cramner took the Romann canon and changed it according his own personal self-inspired calvinist tastes. We can easily see which had been the changes, comparing the old text (blue one), with the new Mr Cranmer's text (green one).

Ok...you say that he corrected some wording according the scripture.
The point is that the roman canon goes back at least up the III century, and probably it goes back to the II century: the words used are extremly ancient, typical of a pre-Nicean theology, very mistrerious and difficoult for our modern understaning.

But we catholics love the tradition: we use the old text even if it difficoult: because the church is an century-ancient building, perhaps uncofortable but original.

Mr Cramner (as Mr Calvin and Mr Luther) wanted to build a complelty new building, new and made according his own tastes, his own interpretation of the Scripture.

This is the reason because Mr Cramner order of the Mass does not appeal my Roman sensibilities: it is out from the Tradition.


Absolutely.
So you support the protestant doctrine that the Eucharist is NOT the single same sacrifice of the Cross: that means that for you the Mass is only a historical recall of the cross, as the 4 of July is a historical recall of a Amrican history event: not something that is happening for us, but a historical re-mind only
Here is a base difference between you and the catholics


So you DON'T believe that Christ died for the sins of all, just the elect. You are something of a Calvinist yourself, it seems, or at least a dedicated opponent of Calvin only when it suits.
You dont got the point.
The atoinment (even for all) is a very limitated view of the Cross. Not wrong but limited.
As for instance my priest said at this morning sermon, the sacrifice of the Mass is an act of creation, not only a payment.

There is no way that a memorialist could accept the wording of (Cranmer's) the Order for Holy Communion. None. So your guesswork here is quite wrong. Mr Cramner himself was a memorialist. He did not changed completly the text only because he wanted to intoduce the changes slowly. He deceived many good English christians

[Albion]

duplication

[Albion]

Let's look at history.
All English and Western Medioeval bishops in the West used in the Mass the text I wrote in blue. No ecceptions, in every rite, Roman, Sarum, Ambroisian....this part of the Mass was the most invariable part.

Right, as far as bishops went. But not so as far as other clergy and members of religious orders for whom an array of different liturgies and prayers were in use. The Book of Common Prayer standardized that, made it available to the common people, and retained the beauty of the earlier forms. This was also made more Biblical. You don't have to like that yourself, but we consider it appropriate.

Mr Cramner

Archbishop Cranmer was in Orders and I would ask you to show the proper respect to the clergy by not using sneering language like that. "Archbishop" is correct as is "Most Reverend" or, in this case, "Archbishop of Canterbury."


Ok...you say that he corrected some wording according the scripture.
The point is that the roman canon goes back at least up the III century, and probably it goes back to the II century: the words used are extremly ancient,

That's correct, but antiquity is not everything...and Archbishop Cranmer did a masterful job of changing as little as is possible. In addition, Christianity in Britain was not the result of missionaries from Rome; Celtic liturgies and prayers are much older than the use of Roman forms in the British Isles.

Most people have no idea of the finesse and care with which this was done, as well as the intonation of the service. For example, when "Et Cum Spirito Tuo" was changed into English (you do favor the language being in the language of the People instead of a requirement for it to be in Latin, don't you?) it became "And with thy spirit." It has almost the same cadence, whereas "And also with you" as used in today's liturgies in some of the liberal Anglican churches, has no beauty to it, even if it makes sense.

But we catholics love the tradition: we use the old text even if it difficoult:

Sure we do. And there is much more of it in Anglicanism than you suspect. Naturally I don't expect that you would without going into it more than we do on discussion forums like this one.

Mr Cramner (as Mr Calvin and Mr Luther) wanted to build a complelty new building, new and made according his own tastes, his own interpretation of the Scripture.

Well, that kind of remark I'll just chalk up to lack of information or willingness to understand or both.

So you support the protestant doctrine that the Eucharist is NOT the single same sacrifice of the Cross:

That is correct. The sacrifice of the Cross was once offered and is complete and effective for all time--although we remember it, give thanks for it, and are benefitted by it without the limitations of ordinary time.

that means that for you the Mass is only a historical recall of the cross,

No. I have already pointed out that this is totally incorrect. So what is your purpose in stating our position incorrectly yet again?

Here is a base difference between you and the catholics

If it really WERE a difference, you might have a point. But it's not, so you don't.


Mr Cramner himself was a memorialist.

What then do you suppose made him create a liturgy and Prayer Book that rejects memorialism? It is apparent that you are not even reasoning correctly. THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER CLOSES OFF, ABSOLUTELY, A MEMORIALIST INTERPRETATION OF THE SACRAMENT. Have you read the Order for Holy Communion--Abp. Cranmer's version, that is--through? If so, what do you suppose the affirmations of the Real Presence in it mean, if not a belief in the Real Presence?

He did not changed completly the text only because he wanted to intoduce the changes slowly. He deceived many good English christians

That's nonsense, and even common sense tells you this. Because his Prayer Book appeared at one point in time and included a huge number of corrections to the previous hodge-podge of breviaries and different liturgies, Daily Offices and so on, your comment is far from what actually happened. Just an excuse to take a swing at a devout Christian bishop, huh?

Well, at least he was not an Atheist and KGB agent masquerading as a bishop, such with some churches we know. ;)

P.S. The Anglicans here are more than willing to educate you and any others who don't know Anglicanism except from hearsay. We've done it before and are willing to do it again. Just ask. But I would request that it be a question, not a slam dressed up in pseudo-historical references. OK?

[a_ntv]

Archbishop Cranmer was in Orders and I would ask you to show the proper respect to the clergy by not using sneering language like that. "Archbishop" is correct as is "Most Reverend" or, in this case, "Archbishop of Canterbury."

Mr Cramned was excomunicated in 1533.
To call him "Mr" is a kind and neutral way to adress at him without giving any judice about him.


That's correct, but antiquity is not everything...and Archbishop Cranmer did a masterful job of changing as little as is possible. In addition, Christianity in Britain was not the result of missionaries from Rome; Celtic liturgies and prayers are much older than the use of Roman forms in the British Isles.

No....There were celtic liturgies in the British Isles, but only before the IX century.
In the Middle age there were few different uses in the Mass (like the Sarum use), but the canon was almost invariable (a few changes in the intercession only)
The main changes of such usess were in other parts of the Mass, like the offertory or the praier of the faithfulls or the beginning rites
The Canon, the cental part of the Mass, was extremply fixed in whichever Wester Medioval Church, for Masses said by wichever, bishops or single priest.
Take ad instance the Sarum rite, a rite that survived from before the reformation: you can check by yourself that the Canon was exactly the one of the Roman Rite.

It is probable that the Book of Common Prayer took from particular English uses, the the variable uses were the liturgy of the hours, prayers of verious events, additional prayers in the Mass..not the Canon that has been always extremly fixed.

Most people have no idea of the finesse and care with which this was done, as well as the intonation of the service. For example, when "Et Cum Spirito Tuo" was changed into English (you do favor the language being in the language of the People instead of a requirement for it to be in Latin, don't you?) it became "And with thy spirit." It has almost the same cadence, whereas "And also with you" as used in today's liturgies in some of the liberal Anglican churches, has no beauty to it, even if it makes sense.
I cannot judge the literary value of Mr Cramner work, mainly beacuse I'm not a English mothertongue.
On this matter I believe you. :) (but here I looked at the doctrine in such a text, not at the literary value)


That is correct. The sacrifice of the Cross was once offered and is complete and effective for all time--although we remember it, give thanks for it, and are benefitted by it without the limitations of ordinary time.
No. I have already pointed out that this is totally incorrect.
I see you dont get our position or I dont get you way of thinking.

The Catholics DO believe that the sacrifice of the Cross was once offered and is complete and effective for all time. The Anglican do the same. It is ok

The Catholics Do believe that Mass is not a historical re-remind of the Cross. The Anglicans believe it is not only a historical re-remind of the Cross. The difference is in this only

The Catholics Do believe that Mass is the same single one Sacrifice of the Cross, not repeated nor simply re-minded, but made actual for us in a dimendion of mistery we cannot locialy explain.
The Anglican believe about that is un-defined (or please explain me...).

THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER CLOSES OFF, ABSOLUTELY, A MEMORIALIST INTERPRETATION OF THE SACRAMENT. Have you read the Order for Holy Communion--Abp. Cranmer's version, that is--through? If so, what do you suppose the affirmations of the Real Presence in it mean, if not a belief in the Real Presence?

The Real Presence is meaningless if you dont see the Eucharist as the sacrifice of the Cross.
The EOs see the altar (not the table) as the burial of Christ: they have a clear and a correct understanding of the Eucharist.
It the Christ in the Echarist is not the Christ incarnated who died for us, which is the use of the Real Presence?
In fact the more logical protestants, as a result of the lost of the sacrifical meaning, arrived also loose the faith in the Real Presence.

Please give me you opnion on this page (http://www.catholictradition.org/Eucharist/liturgical-revolution.htm)

[No Swansong]

"Mr. Cramner?"

Ok I see how this is going to work. How is Benny this morning?

[Albion]

Mr Cramned

That's C-R-A-N-M-E-R.

was excomunicated in 1533.
To call him "Mr" is a kind and neutral way to adress at him without giving any judice about him.

I again ask you to be polite, regardless of your own views on the Archbishop of Canterbury. But as to being excommunicated--Being "excommunicated" by a church one doesn't belong to doesn't mean much of anything. In fact, it's impossible. You'd have to be part of any communion in order to be separated from it by action of that communion.

No....There were celtic liturgies in the British Isles, but only before the IX century.

That's where the Church comes from, as I was saying. We are not indebted to the Roman church for our liturgy.

It is probable that the Book of Common Prayer took from particular English uses

Well, we aren't benefitted by having you make guesses when we actually know the answer.

I not judge the literary value of Mr Cramner work, mainly beacuse I'm not a English mothertongue.

I was told that before, so this might account for your difficulty with the history and theology also. As I said, we'll help if you pose questions.

I dont get you way of thinking.

The Catholics DO believe that the sacrifice of the Cross was once offered and is complete and effective for all time. The Anglican do the same. It is ok

Good.

The Catholics Do believe that Mass is not a historical re-remind of the Cross.

Well, they actually do. It's just that they associate MORE with it than that. The Anglicans believe it is not only a historical re-remind of the Cross. The difference is in this only[/quote]

But you are still wrong. We do not believe that it is just a remind. That is absolute and provable.

The Catholics Do believe that Mass is the same single one Sacrifice of the Cross, not repeated nor simply re-minded, but made actual for us in a dimendion of mistery we cannot locialy explain.

You can't really say that and also what you said above which is in conflict with this.

The Anglican believe about that is un-defined (or please explain me...).

The Anglican view on this aspect of the Lord's Supper is that the Crucifixion was completed once for all and cannot be repeated, although we are in mind of it and its benefits to us at every Liturgy.


The Real Presence is meaningless if you dont see the Eucharist as the sacrifice of the Cross.

No. I see no reason at all for saying that. The sacrifice of the Cross was once and completed. What is the Supper, then? It is a sacrament. Are the other sacraments you believe in worthless? They don't resacrifice Christ and yet you beleive that they forgive sins and impart Grace, don't you?

The EOs see the altar (not the table) as the burial of Christ: they have a clear and a correct understanding of the Eucharist.

If that is your view, then it is. I wouldn't agree myself.

It the Christ in the Echarist is not the Christ incarnated who died for us, which is the use of the Real Presence?

It IS the real Christ who incarnated for us. We don't need to think that we are resacrificing him or redoing the original sacrifice or saying that we are continuing that self-same sacrifice that Christ himself called "finished" for us to believe that he is present.

In fact the more logical protestants, as a result of the lost of the sacrifical meaning, arrived also loose the faith in the Real Presence.

Maybe so, but they'll have to speak for themselves on that.

[Albion]

Please give me you opnion on this page (http://www.catholictradition.org/Eucharist/liturgical-revolution.htm)

It looks like one man's webpage on which he's pulled together a wide variety of links to causes he likes. There's nothing official to it.

If you want me to comment on something in particular, please assist me by directing me to the particular part you want commented on. There's quite a lot there to deal with otherwise and I don't know what you are interested in.

[a_ntv]

That's C-R-A-N-M-E-R.
Sorry for the mis-spelling :)



But as to being excommunicated--Being "excommunicated" by a church one doesn't belong to doesn't mean much of anything. In fact, it's impossible.
Well, he was part of the Catholic Church before to establish a new denomination. We see Henry VIII action simply as a shism, but after Mr Cranmer the Church of England became a separate denomination.
Anyway, "Archbishop", "Most Reverend" or similar expressions are simply ecclesiatic honors that cease with the excomunication.


That's where the Church comes from, as I was saying. We are not indebted to the Roman church for our liturgy.
that is a myth.
There is no historical continuity from the gallican liturgy and the Middle Age English Liturgy.
Take the Eucharistic Prayer of the Sarum Mass and compare it with the Roman Canon: do it by yourself and see.
And what we know about the Anciant Gallican uses is very few an literary only.
For sure the Book of Common Prayer uses some local prayers, but this prayers were middle-age developments and minor innovations of the roman rite, they had nothing to see with Gallican use, know only from a few literal sources. And anyway the Eucharistic Prayer have been always fixed.


I was told that before, so this might account for your difficulty with the history and theology also.
The fact I cannot write properly English dont means I dont know history and thelogy. And I'm free from the protestant anti-catholic propaganda


You can't really say that and also what you said above which is in conflict with this.
You are right
Yes of course there is a conflict if you use only a human logic.
The eucharist cannot be logically understood


The Anglican view on this aspect of the Lord's Supper is that the Crucifixion was completed once for all and cannot be repeated, although we are in mind of it and its benefits to us at every Liturgy.
No...the Mass is not a way to go and get a box of benefits.
You are like to say: Jesus produced all the benefis (the material grace) on the cross, then he kept them in a safebox, and at every Mass we can take a few of these benefits
The Eucharist is not a dispenser of previously produced grace !!!
This vision of the grace is something of very medioeval but far from the catholic understanding.

You cannot separe the grace (the benefits, the deeds) from Christ Himself.
There can be a true personal relationship between us and Christ: in the Eucharist He diee for each of us. He is physiaclly present in the Eucharist to made possible this personal relation: that we became one thing in Him.

[a_ntv]

It looks like one man's webpage on which he's pulled together a wide variety of links to causes he likes. There's nothing official to it.
.
See the page Cranmer's Godly Order (http://www.catholictradition.org/Eucharist/liturgical-revolution.htm)

Dr. Brightman, the noted Anglican liturgical historian, explains that everything that signifies oblation is repudiated in the four types of ritual produced by the Continental Reformation from Wittenberg, Strassburg, and Geneva, Zurich, and Cologne. ...this was also true of Cranmer's reforms
A characteristic of the Protestant innovations is that in both doctrine and liturgy they were imposed from above by clerics backed by the support of those holding civil power

In order not to over-alarm the Faithful, the first Protestant Communion Services tended to be interim measures, ambiguous rites which could pave the way for more radical revisions to be introduced at a more opportune moment.
In this way the common people would never become aware there was any change, said Luther, and all would be accomplished 'without scandal'. 'There is no need to preach about this to the laity

As a result, not only is there in the whole Ordinal no clear mention of sacrifice, of consecration, of priesthood, of the power to consecrate and offer sacrifice, but, as We have already indicated, every trace of these and similar things remaining in such prayers of the Catholic rite as were not completely rejected, was purposely removed and obliterated."

Cranmer explained: "Christ is present whensoever the church prayeth unto Him, and is gathered together in His name. And the bread and wine be made unto us the body and blood of Christ (as it is in the book of common prayer), but not by changing the substance of the bread and wine into the natural substance of Christ's natural body and blood, but that in the godly using of them they be unto the receivers Christ's body and blood . . . "

It is clear that Cranmer was a memorialist !

[Albion]

Well, he was part of the Catholic Church before to establish a new denomination.

The Church had been in Britain as long as it had been in Rome. This was just a parting of the ways of two branches of the historic church.

We see Henry VIII action simply as a shism, but after Mr Cranmer

Oh. You have chosen to end this conversation here then. If we can't converse with mutual respect, we cannot converse.

[Albion]

Cranmer explained: "Christ is present whensoever the church prayeth unto Him, and is gathered together in His name. And the bread and wine be made unto us the body and blood of Christ (as it is in the book of common prayer), but not by changing the substance of the bread and wine into the natural substance of Christ's natural body and blood, but that in the godly using of them they be unto the receivers Christ's body and blood . . . "

It is clear that Cranmer was a memorialist !




No, Cranmer was not a memorialist, and that is clear from the lettering above (in red). There is no denying that...unless one doesn't understand the doctrine of the Real Presence. I think I have figured out now that this is your problem. You have the idea that the Roman Catholic Church's doctrine of Transubstantiation, created in 1215, IS the doctrine of the Real Presence. It is not. The Real Presence goes way back in Church History, but Transubstantiation was a modification only made in the Middle Ages. The Real Presence means that Christ is really present--a refutation of memorialism! But it does not say, necessarily, that the bread and wine cease to be bread and wine at the same time. All Anglicans believe in the Real Presence and it is clearly stated in the Book of Common Prayer.

What the above statement by Abp. Cranmer says is that we believe in the Real Presence--the opposite of memorialism--but not in Transubstantiation which we consider an invention of only a couple hundred years prior to the Reformation.

[Colabomb]

Authority that overlooks and feeds the entire flock.
An authority unlike a king, but instead is least of all...and serves all.

PPL just dont get that.




You kneel before, dress in gold and kiss the ring of your "servant".

Frankly even in our church I think bishops are given honors of a King rather than those of a servant, but nothing compared to Rome and her "servant".

[a_ntv]

The Church had been in Britain as long as it had been in Rome. This was just a parting of the ways of two branches of the historic church./quote]Well, it was in Britain since the 50 ac?
Who was the first Bishop of England who is historically known?
Anyway it is not so important here

[quote=Albion;37765791]No, Cranmer was not a memorialist, and that is clear from the lettering above (in red). .

Let's analize the part in red:
And the bread and wine be made unto us the body and blood of Christ

I've highlighted the words unto us, that is an addition that allows a memorialist reading of such a sentence.
It means: the bread and the wine are the body and blood of Christ in the measure we believe it
Not objectively, but subjectively.

And and anyway read agai the whole sentence: "Christ is present whensoever the church prayeth unto Him, and is gathered together in His name. And the bread and wine be made unto us the body and blood of Christ (as it is in the book of common prayer), but not by changing the substance of the bread and wine into the natural substance of Christ's natural body and blood, but that in the godly using of them they be unto the receivers Christ's body and blood . . .

*******************

I'm honestly not too interested in the XVI century debate....I'm more inteterested in the present Anglicans, who look actually better than the XVI century Anglicans.

I told you: I consider acceptable the anglican eucharistic prayer that was linked before (the one in green here (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=37687973#post37687973)): it could be used with a memorialist meaning, but it can be aslo used with a correct meaning.

I ask you: do you consider acceptable the III century roman canon (the one in blue here (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=37687973#post37687973)) ?

[Albion]

[quote=Albion]The Church had been in Britain as long as it had been in Rome. This was just a parting of the ways of two branches of the historic church.

Well, it was in Britain since the 50 ac?

Quite possibly. Some say as early as AD 37, others later in the first century, others possibly second century. Certainly we cannot know for sure the exact date, but neither can we be certain when Peter was in Rome. However,we are certain of the general time for each.

Who was the first Bishop of England who is historically known?

I myself have never thought about it.

Let's analize the part in red:
And the bread and wine be made unto us the body and blood of Christ

I've highlighted the words unto us, that is an addition that allows a memorialist reading of such a sentence.

No, it doesn't. It could be interpreted as a receptionist interpretation, but not as a memorialist one.

And and anyway read agai the whole sentence: "Christ is present whensoever the church prayeth unto Him, and is gathered together in His name. And the bread and wine be made unto us the body and blood of Christ (as it is in the book of common prayer), but not by changing the substance of the bread and wine into the natural substance of Christ's natural body and blood, but that in the godly using of them they be unto the receivers Christ's body and blood . . .

*******************

Yes. It rules out the memorialist interpretation.

Nowhere is there a hint of the elements only representing body and blood.

I'm honestly not too interested in the XVI century debate....I'm more inteterested in the present Anglicans, who look actually better than the XVI century Anglicans.

All right.

I told you: I consider acceptable the anglican eucharistic prayer that was linked before (the one in green here (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=37687973#post37687973)): it could be used with a memorialist meaning, but it can be aslo used with a correct meaning.

It cannot be used with a memorialist meaning.

But not only that, you must--to be fair--consider all the rest that is included in the liturgy, not a selection of a commentary from here and there. What be believe obviously is what we pray. What does the Book of Common Prayer say to you?

I ask you: do you consider acceptable the III century roman canon (the one in blue here (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=37687973#post37687973)) ?

Sorry, but clicking on that link and following the colors doesn't seem to take me to the selection you are wanting me to look at. Why don't you just copy and paste it for us?

[a_ntv]

No, it doesn't. It could be interpreted as a receptionist interpretation, but not as a memorialist one.
For my rude catholic view, receptionism and memorialism are simply nuances of the same protestant error


But not only that, you must--to be fair--consider all the rest that is included in the liturgy, not a selection of a commentary from here and there. What be believe obviously is what we pray. What does the Book of Common Prayer say to you?
I told you that I consider it acceptable. Not at all perfect nor ancient nor with a catholic flavour, but acceptable...


Sorry, but clicking on that link and following the colors doesn't seem to take me to the selection you are wanting me to look at. Why don't you just copy and paste it for us?
I linked my post #52
any way here is the complete text

(dialogue)...
(Preface)...
(Sanctus)...
(Te igitur) Therefore, most gracious Father, we humbly beg of You and entreat You through Jesus Christ Your Son, Our Lord. Hold acceptable and bless + these gifts, these + offerings, these + holy and unspotted oblations which, in the first place, we offer You for your Holy Catholic Church. Grant her peace and protection, unity and guidance throughout the worlds, together with Your servant (name), our Pope, and (name), our Bishop; and all Orthodox believers who cherish the Catholic and Apostolic Faith.
(Memento Domine) Remember, O Lord, Your servants and handmaids, (name) and (name), and all here presen